Marriage and ministering without discrimination

I found your front-page story (Church threatens new rift with government over gay marriage, 12 June) infuriating. As a retired Anglican vicar, I took the marriage of a number of people who were divorced with a clear conscience, knowing that there was a time not so long ago when it was impossible to be married in church once you had been divorced.

It should be perfectly possible for more enlightened parishes to celebrate gay marriages on the same basis, while accepting that other parishes and clergy feel that is a step too far. Although we did not get into the semantics, I was also privileged to bless the partnership of two women in a service recently, assisted by two Anglican lay readers who happened to be the parents of one of the women.

Diversity, democracy and the inevitable disagreeing on various issues are the names of the game for churches as it is for the rest of society. Nurture love is the essential requirement; so let us relax on sex and sexuality, get real and concentrate our justice energy on the much bigger issues of sharing wealth more equitably, abolishing poverty and helping our planet survive and thrive for future generations.Rev David Charles-EdwardsRugby, Warwickshire

• In reference your editorial (Progress v the pulpit, 13 June), I have to agree that the church will find itself on "the wrong side of history" in relation to its current stance on the legalisation of gay marriage. As an Anglican priest, I can only say that not all Christians are against gay marriage, and that the Anglican hierarchy does not speak on behalf of all Anglicans.

I believe that Christ began a progressive social gospel, in which all are included. This must be allowed to evolve, inspired by the spirit of Christ's teaching rather than the letter of the law – logically this spirit of equality and inclusivity has to include homosexual people and the blessing of their relationships.

The nature of marriage itself has not remained static, but has evolved over time, and the C of E itself was founded as a result of the overhaul of marriage laws, this was of course all to do to with the matter of divorce, which, ironically, is the one matter in connection with human sexuality which Christ himself had a clear viewpoint (he wasn't keen on it). As an Anglican priest, married to a divorcee, it would be hypocritical of me to have anything but a broad outlook on human sexuality, and I have no right to limit God's grace and blessing.Rev Dean AkrillAssociate vicar, parish of Sprowston, Norfolk

• It is unfortunate that the Church of England has chosen to make such an extreme submission to the government's consultation on gay marriage. I understand that some in the church are concerned that their future role and status might be undermined if same-sex marriage were introduced. Surely, though, if this were the case, they would only have themselves to blame. There is nothing in the scriptures to justify opposition to gay marriage and while prominent clergy tie themselves in knots to find reasons to oppose the moves, it is difficult to believe that the true nature of opposition to the proposals isn't based on simple old-fashioned fear and bigotry.As with the introduction of civil partnerships, the law will have to be changed with or without the Church of England's approval. Leading churchmen will then have to accept the legislative change as a fait accompli , at which point they can, once again, start pretending that they were in favour of change all along.Tim MatthewsLuton, Bedfordshire

• Simon Jenkins (The marriage of church and state is anything but gay, 13 June) is wrong to suggest that the only issue about gay marriage is the Anglican church allegedly claiming "ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship". The definition is actually deeply embedded in the English language. He is right that the church appropriated the ceremonial (the "wedding"), but the condition of marriage has always meant, in common usage, a union of two persons of opposite gender – whether legal and official, or by convention ("common-law marriage").

Changing the meaning of a word by government say-so should not be undertaken lightly, as there are serious knock-on effects way outside the intended issue of human rights for homosexuals. Firstly everyone's understanding of the written word over all previous centuries will be coloured by the new meaning. Further those needing to refer to what we now call "marriage", ie a man-woman relationship, will have to revive "wedlock" or "matrimony", or invent some new word to do so. Surely the whole point of the recent civil partnership legislation was to neatly avoid this problem, so, since it's not broke, why attempt to fix it by creating this new linguistic and socio-cultural quagmire?Dr Anthony ChekeOxford

• The Church of England's suggestion of disestablishment following the introduction of same-sex marriage only serves to make the proposals more attractive. The UK has citizens of a multitude of faiths, and millions who have no religion. It's good to hear that the church has realised that its relationship with the state needs to be reviewed.Andrew CopsonChief executive, British Humanist Association

• No more church weddings on behalf of the state? Hallelujah. Neither church nor state seems to get it. The simple way forward is to require every wedding couple, irrespective of sexual orientation, to be married by the state in a civil ceremony, followed by a blessing in church for those who wish it. The church's vocation is not providing quaint backdrops for wedding photos, but ministering without discrimination to all who seek God.Rev Richard GilesTynemouth, Tyne and Wear

• The Church of England's candid admission that it opposes gay marriage laws because the European court of human rights might well rule that the church's exemption from marrying same-sex couples undermines human rights tells us all we need to know. We are grateful for the clarification.Professor Rebecca Boden, Professor Debbie Epstein (civil partners)Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire